i) A basic problem with Carrier’s argument is that he fails
to distinguish between the internal argument from evil and the external
argument from evil.

The existence of infant mortality isn’t even prima facie
inconsistent with the existence of the Biblical God. It’s not as if the Bible
depicts a world in which no child ever dies of illness, in glaring contrast to
the real world where children die every day.

Death is a fixture of Bible history. In Scripture, everyone
dies–sooner or later. Likewise, the Bible acknowledges the existence of
disease. Indeed, Carrier appeals to the healings of Jesus to document that
fact.

The Bible doesn’t depict a disease-free world. The Bible
doesn’t depict a world in which everyone is immortal.

Therefore, there is no prima facie discrepancy between
Biblical theism and human mortality. So why does Carrier think human mortality
is an undercutter or defeater for Biblical theism? From a Biblical perspective,
the coexistence of the Biblical God with human mortality is clearly compatible,
for the obvious reason that Scripture acknowledges both.

It’s as if Carrier deployed the argument from water to
disprove Biblical theism. Carrier cited statistics regarding the volume of
freshwater in lakes, rivers, glaciers, icecaps, and aquifers. He cited
statistics about snowfall and rainfall. He cited statistics about the volume of
saltwater in the oceans.

He then triumphantly explained how the existence of water
disproved the existence of Yahweh! But since the Bible doesn’t deny the
existence of water, how would the existence of water be inconsistent with the
existence of Yahweh?

ii) The Bible has a theology of death. There is a
theological rationale for death. Carrier doesn’t even engage that argument.

Human mortality a divine curse. We live in a fallen world.
Exposure to natural evils like disease and death are hallmarks of our fallen
condition.

iii) Although death is a curse, death has fringe benefits.
Many of us exist because others have died. Take replacement children. Or widows
and widowers who remarry. Take war, which results in dislocation. That, in
turn, results in men and women mating with different men and women than if they
hadn’t migrated from the war zone. Same thing with famine. A fallen world has compensatory goods.

iv) Although death is a curse, immortality in a fallen world
would be a curse. To live in sin century after century, millennium after
millennium, to be trapped in a fallen world, to be unable to die, is no less
punitive than death. Indeed, that’s what the Bible means by everlasting
punishment.

Many unbelievers begin killing themselves long before their
natural lifespan has run its course. Many unbelievers begin killing themselves
in their prime. They drink themselves to death. Or escape into recreational drugs. Or commit
suicide.

They can’t stand to be sober. They hate getting up in the
morning. They dread the prospect of getting through another day. They are
miserable, depressed. The emptiness of their godless existence is unendurable.

v) Death is the great reminder of how life without God robs
us of everything we hold dear. In a fallen world, time is often our worst
enemy. The thief of time. The passage of time devours our past. Steadily
consumes everything that makes life worthwhile.

Coming face to face with the death of friends and relatives
forces us to confront our desperate need for divine healing. Physical healing.
Spiritual healing. Emotional healing.

vi) The Bible has a doctrine of immortality. That’s an
eschatological promise. Although death is the Last Enemy, death won’t have the
last word.

Having to wait for something makes it more precious than
instant gratification. Dying makes eternal life more precious. Frequently we
don’t know how good we had it until we lose it.

As an internal argument from evil, Carrier’s argument
fails–badly.

vii) What about an external argument from evil? But from
that perspective, why is infant mortality evil?

To begin with, Carrier supports abortion. So he’s shedding
crocodile tears when he feigns indignation over the death of babies.

viii) In addition, from his Darwinian perspective, high
rates of mortality for young offspring figure in the balance of nature. That’s
a common phenomenon in the animal kingdom. Out of large litters, only a few
survive to adulthood. Most offspring die to feed predators, scavengers, and
detritivores. Carrier complains about germs and parasites, but that’s an
integral part of the ecosystem. Has Carrier bothered to consider what would
happen to life on earth if we eradicated all germs and parasites? Has it
occurred to him that that would be detrimental to life on earth?

From a Darwinian perspective, the death of simian primate
offspring is no different than the death of prosimian primate offspring (e.g.
gibbons, lemurs, orangutan, marmosets). Of course, because it’s our own
species, natural selection has programmed our brain to form emotional
attachments for certain members of our own species, like offspring. But that
has no objective significance.

ix) Carrier makes hay about Christ’s opposition to
ceremonial handwashing. Is Carrier really that illiterate, or is he just
playing to the galleries?

In context, this has reference to ritual cleansing, not
hygienic cleansing. Ritual ablutions don’t use antiseptic soap and water.
There’s nothing inherently sanitary about ritual ablutions.

x) Carrier said:

No. Jesus argued that we don't have to wash our hands before
we eat, that washing is a human tradition, with no endorsement from God. And
that nothing we put into us can harm us. And as he is claimed to have said in
the Gospel of Mark, not even poison. Clearly, Jesus knew nothing about germs.
Nor did he know that faith doesn't make you immune to poison, either.

a) Carrier is partly alluding to the Long Ending of Mark.
But that’s probably a scribal interpolation.

b) In addition, Carrier is alluding to Mk 7:14-23 (par. Mt
15:10-20). Once again, is Carrier really that illiterate, or is he just playing
to the galleries?

Jesus is discussing “defilement,” not hygiene. “Defilement”
is a cultic category. It refers to ritual impurity, not unsanitary conditions.